PRODUCING ARTISTIC VALUE:

The Case of Rock Music

Motti Regev
The Hebrew University of Jerusalem

Cultural forms gain artistic recognition when their producers of meaning “prove” that
they (a) contain “serious” meanings and aesthetic genuineness; (b) they are produced
by a definable creative entity and (c) the creative entity is autonomous, producing its
works for their own sake. Since the 1960’s, critics have claimed artistic recognition for
rock music. They have done so by stressing the “subversive” meaning of rock, by
identifying the rock-group and the rock individual-musician as autonomous creative
entities, by consecrating a body of albums as the “masterpieces” of rock and by
defining several sonic components as rock’s genuine aesthetic language. Although the
realization of this claim remains partial, it demonstrates that the belief in artistic
cultural hierarchies is a structuring force in contemporary culture.

“Someday everything is gonna be different

When I paint my masterpiece”
Bob Dylan

In his classic article, Adomo (1941) presented a decisive position regarding popular
music. Adorno viewed popular music, all of it, as part of the culture industry, a phenome-
non which assesses the existing social reality by constituting in its audiences emotional
states which support implicitly the dominant interests of the capitalist regime. It is thus
impossible for popular music to contain the redeeming power of art, as a negation of
existing reality and as social critique.
Some forty-five years later rock critic Greil Marcus wrote in the highly sophisticated
contemporary art magazine Artforum:

Of course, almost everyone settles. No one wins. The Absolut was denied in the
Garden of Eden, and the dcfining characteristic of human beings remains their ability
to want more then they can have. That contradiction produces rage, desire, hate and
love, and real art brings all those things to life. (Marcus 1985, p. 86)

Direct all correspondence to: Motti Regev, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Department of Sociology. Mount Scopus
Jerusalem 91905, Israel.
The Sociological Quarterly, Volume 35, Number 1, pages 85-102.
Copyright 0 1994 by JAI Press, Inc.
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
ISSN: 0038-0253.
86 THE SOCIOLOGICAL QUARTERLY Vol. 35iNo. 1 /1994

These lines were written about the song “Every Picture Tells a Story” by Rod Stewart.
Marcus is representative of a larger group of critics, scholars and fans of popular music
who subscribe to the belief that the music of the Beatles, Bob Dylan, the Rolling Stones
and Jimi Hendrix-to name the most obvious examples-constitutes “real art,” no less
real than any serious music might be. For the last twenty-five years, this group of rock
intelligentsia has been formulating their claim that rock music-as a kind of popular
music-should be recognized as an art form.
This study examines the discursive strategies which have been used by this group of
critics and interpreters of rock music in order to promote its recognition as an art form.
The guiding argument is that the discourse about rock music which has been developed in
this context, although based on concepts of “authenticity” and commitment to an ideology
of subversiveness, has gradually constructed distinctions and hierarchies which resulted
from the application of the traditional ideology of autonomous art.
This approach to rock music breaks with the predominant one, which stresses the place
of rock in its fans’ life-worlds (Frith 1981; Grossberg 1984a). Rock is brought here into
the context of the sociology of art and placed within a larger cultural process, in which a
continuous attempt is being made to apply the traditional ideology of autonomous art to
“popular” and other cultural forms, thereby claiming for them artistic status. Rock music
is examined here in the framework of Bourdieu’s notion of the field of cultural production
(1969; 1980; 1983) which-coupled with his “social critique of the judgement of taste”
( i 984)-offers the most comprehensive theoretical framework for analyzing contempo-
rary cultural processes.
The cultural field is a space of positions occupied by different social entities, which
might be organizations, groups or individuals. These entities or positions are in a constant
state of struggle over the accumulation and distribution of different resources, and in
particular over the accumulation and distribution of prestige, recognition and high evalua-
tion. The specificity of the cultural field lies in the fact that prestige and recognition are
not granted directly to the social entities, but primarily to the works and to the contents
they produce; in other words, their cultural forms and art forms. Hierarchy in the cultural
field is based on the ideology of the “superior reality” of art and of the “autonomous
creative genius” (Williams 1958; Bourdieu 1969).
According to this world view, a cultural form is a candidate for recognition as an art
form when the following basic conditions are fulfilled: 1 . It is demonstrated that specific
works belonging to that form contain in some way (a) formal-aesthetic sophistication or
genuineness, and (b) philosophical, social, psychological or emotional meanings; 2 . It is
possible to point to a creative entity-usually an individual-whose spirit and “inner
truth” is the source of the form and meaning of the work; 3. It can be argued that the
creative entity has produced the work by way of (at least) some commitment to that “inner
truth,” beyond considerations of practicality and usefulness-the ideological theme of
“art for art’s sake.”
In this scheme, the position which holds the authority to present cultural products as
fulfilling these requirements, thereby granting them artistic recognition, enjoys monumen-
tal influence. This is the production-of-meaning position, which includes the analyzers,
interpreters, teachers and critics of cultural products. This position produces both the
analyses and the interpretations which present the “artistry” of cultural forms, and the
belief in the validity of those interpretations (Bourdieu 1980). At its extreme, the produc-
tion-of-meaning position consecrates specific works as the “masterpieces” of a specific art
Producing Artistic V a h e 87

form and crowns their producers as the “great geniuses” of that form. The knowledge, the
skills and the sensibilities-in short, the dispositions or the habitus-employed in the
reading and decoding of such works, are a major component of the dominant cultural
capital which, in its turn, is a central factor in processes of stratification and reproduction
(Bourdieu 1984; Lamont and Lareau 1988).
Contemporary “popular” cultural forms, usually characterized by a collective process
of production, technological saturation and a tendency to appear as products of profit-
seeking organizations, have been regarded by the dominant forces in the cultural field as
an antithesis of artistry and relegated to the inferior position of “entertainment”, “show
buisness” or “mass culture.” Recent sociological examinations of the production of artistic
value have undermined the old high/popular cultural hierarchy (Gans 1973; Schudson
1987; Wolff 1981, 1983; Becker 1982; DiMaggio 1987). These, coupled with the dis-
course on “postmodern” culture (Lyotard 1984; Jameson 1984), have implied that the
belief in the ideology of autonomous art has declined in contemporary culture. It is
probably true that the recent developments in the sociology of art have catalyzed a decline
of the belief in the ideology of autonomous art among scholars in disciplines such as art
history or comparative literature (Wolff 1987; Zolberg 1990). But it remains questionable
whether such a decline takes place in the cultural field itself, as implied by the discourse
on postmodern culture. Based on the case of rock music, this article argues that the belief
in the ideology of autonomous art still determines the struggles and defines the prizes in
the field of cultural production.
The changes in the status of film (Sontag 1966; Love11 1972; Mukerji 1978) and
photography (Christopherson 1974; Rosenblum 1978; Bourdieu 1990) serve as notable
evidence to the successful struggles which the producers and analyzers of “popular” forms
have conducted over the recognition of these forms as “artistic”, as valuable cultural
forms. They did so as part of the field, and by accepting its rules. The acceptance of the
rules of the field was manifested in the fact that the struggles were not conducted against
the existing parameters of art, but on the basis of adherence to the belief in them. The
production of meaning apparatuses of the contemporary cultural forms have been inter-
preting, analyzing and evaluating them as a discursive strategy of “proving” their artistry.
The general tendency has been to point to the existence of a creative entity, and the
commitment of this entity to the truth of the work (and not solely to its profitability). The
principal endeavor, however, has been to demonstrate the existence of serious meanings
and of formal-aesthetic complexity in these forms.
This study places rock music within this process. It examines rock as another exponent
of it. The article describes how the producers of rock meanings have formulated an
interpretation of the music which applies the traditional parameters of art to the specificity
of rock and popular music. In other words,’the article demonstrates how the discourse on
rock music-with its specific jargon of subversiveness and authenticity-has been claim-
ing artistic status for this music along the traditional parameters of such status.
This implies that the change which has occurred in the artistic status of rock and in the
position of popular music in the cultural field should be understood as a success in terms
of the logic of this field. The leading perspective in the study of rock has been the so-
called “incorporation” thesis, according to which the institutionalization of rock implies a
failure of its “authentic” meanings. A major endeavor of the academic study of rock music
has been to articulate the anti-hegemonic meanings of rock. In addition to examining how
rock music fulfills its subversive function for its fans (Grossberg 1984a; 1984b; 1985;
88 THE SOCIOLOGICAL QUARTERLY Vol. 35/No. 1A994

1987; Frith 1981; 1988b; Chambers 1985; Wicke 1987), a central issue in the study of
rock has been the “loss of authenticity”, the subordination of its original social meanings
to the interests of the music industry and to hegemonic culture. Interpretations of this
process have ranged from harsh descriptions of the “co-optation” of rock music (Chapple
and Garofalo 1977), to analyses of the continuing struggle over meaning between fans and
the industry (Frith 1981, 1988b), to ruminations and disputes about the “death” of rock
(Grossberg 1986). The academic study of rock music has acted more often than not as an
extension of the production of meaning apparatus, producing an academic assessment of
the “subversiveness” of rock. The examination of the production of rock meanings from
the perspective of field theory which is suggested here, inverses the “incorporation”
thesis. The legitimation of rock, the possible recognition of its artistic value, is in fact the
prize over which the struggle has been conducted.
It all means, also, that the dynamic in the field of popular music in the last twenty-five
years is determined by an artistic logic. The production of meaning apparatus of rock
music during the last twenty-five years has proclaimed a group of musicians as the “great
artists” of rock music and has consecrated their works as the “masterpieces” of this
musical form. The corpus of music created by these musicians has accumulated over the
years, forming a repertory of musical codes, sound patterns and specific works. Knowing
and mastering these codes and patterns comprises the collection of rock dispositions, the
specific habitus of the form. This habitus, as a collection of practices and stylistic impera-
tives for making music, forms the aesthetic of rock. This aesthetic has been adopted by a
growing number of musicians since the 1950s. By 1972, about 80 percent of the music
produced in the United States consisted of different rock derivatives (Chapple and Gar-
ofalo 1977). The adoption of the rock aesthetic has been in fact a continuous recognition
of the “great artists” of rock and of their works as the formulators of the creative aesthetic
in popular music. It is a constant process of change, where the “great artists” of rock are
propelled to a defined top artistic position as the pioneers, innovators and delineators of
the road to creativity for the whole field. of popular music. An ever-present frontier of
“alternative”, “fringe” and other “serious” styles of rock has been nurtured by the pro-
ducers of meaning. These groups become the suppliers of innovations in sound texture
and lyrical content for the whole field of popular music. The adherence of rock critics to
the traditional concept of art has been a central driving and structuring force in the field
and not a “romantic” ideology which camouflages the commercial interests of the industry
(Stratton 1982; 1983a; 1983b).
Rock music critics-or at least a specific fraction of them-have been the vanguard of
this process. The discourse they constructed has been based on the announcement of an
heretical break with the popular music that preceded rock. This was made possible by
several music production practices which have crystallized in the second half of the
century and which have altered traditional practices of playing, producing and storing
music.

POPULAR MUSIC AS A CULTURAL FORM

Around mid-century, popular music was associated mostly with the “popular style”
(Hamm 1979), the peak of which is usually identified with the music of composers like
Jerome Kern, Richard Rodgers, Cole Porter and Irving Berlin. Regarded by its critics as
music produced by formula for a mass-market demand and as based on borrowings of
Producing Artistic Value 89

musical content from other sources (Middleton 1990), popular music before the 1950’s
was hardly a candidate for claims regarding artistic recognition.
In the second half of the century popular music manufacturing has centered around
amplification and electric instruments as means of performance. Studio work became the
production practice and the phonogram (record, tape, cd) a commodity. The use to which
these components have been put by musicians has gradually defined a cultural context of
music making essentially different from the traditional one (Frith 1986). This new context
formed the basis of change at the core of rock’s artistic ideology. It is shortly summarized
here.
Amplification and electric/electronic instruments have influenced music making mainly
by the unprecedented qualities and volume of their sonic textures. Recording machines
and studio technology have redefined music production. With them, creation of music
could become a process of assemblage, in which sonic raw materials-possibly recorded
in different times and at different places, by one or various persons-are mixed into one
package which is the musical work. Two consequences of recording have been the emer-
gence of new creative roles in the production of music (i.e. sound engineers and pro-
ducers, see Kealy 1979), and the growing contribution of instrumentalists and singers to
the actual creation of the work, and not only to its performance (which means also a
certain decline in the centrality of composition). The fixation of sound and the eternaliza-
tion of musical performance which were made possible by the record (tape, CD), made it
possible to store and produce musical works as sonic substance. From an abstract entity
which might have countless performances but no “original”, musical works could become
artifacts in which the work and its performance are united into one cultural unit (rendering
other performances or recordings “covers” of the “original” recording). The following
pages demonstrate how the production of meaning apparatus of rock music found in these
components the basis for the definition of rock’s genuineness.

PRODUCERS OF MEANING
Around the mid-l960s, a struggle to raise the artistic prestige of popular music began. It
was based on the belief that since the mid-1950s a new type of popular music had
emerged-initially called “rock’n’roll” and later “rock”. This music was essentially dif-
ferent from the popular music which preceded it and which continue to exist in conjuction
with it. That is, although institutional changes that took place in the production of popular
music might explain the emergence of rock’n’roll-of the music itself-in 1955 (Peter-
son 1990), the explanatory factor regarding the cultural status of rock music is the
appearance of a belief in the distinctness of this music-a belief that was articulated into
an artistic ideology about a decade later, in the 1960s.
The production of value for rock music was not based on an explicit formulation of a
“pure” aesthetic theory, as in the case of film. At issue here were rather the social
meanings of the music-rock was believed to be subversive in regard to dominant
culture-and the interpretations and analyses which served to distinguish between “au-
thentic” rock music and its imitation. An aesthetic which evaluates music according to the
successful realization of its social functions has been manifestly at work (Frith 1987,
1990).
Making a distinction between “qualitative” forms of popular music and other forms was
an acknowledged phenomenon before the advent of rock’n’roll, both among musicians
90 THE SOCIOLOGICAL QUARTERLY Vol. 3 5 i N o . 1 /1994

(Becker 1951) and among audiences (Riesman 1950; Johnston and Katz 1957). The
distinction was explained mainly as functioning for the definition of the group as such, for
its construction as a distinct social unit. Likewise, several researchers had pointed to the
functionality of rock music in general, and of certain rock styles in particular, for the
emergence of youth “sub-cultures.” The perspective has been basically anthropological: to
understand the meaning of the music and its uses for the particular group described (Brake
1980; Hebdige 1979; Willis 1978; Vulliamy 1977). The life-worlds of rock fans (or of
musicians) might comprise, in this regard, a different discourse than the one analyzed
here. The main difference between the making of meaning in a subcultural context and the
production of meaning by an autonomous apparatus comprising mass-media, lies in the
demand of the latter for a wider public and institutional recognition of the meanings
produced, and in the implicit claim for status and prestige.
During the 1960s, then, an autonomous apparatus of meaning production emerged,
which publicly interpreted and presented rock as a “serious” musical and cultural practice.
This particular apparatus produced the dominant discourse on rock (Taylor 1985; Frith
1981) and consisted of two main channels of production: radio broadcasting and
journalism.
The contribution of radio to the production of rock’s artistic meaning took form in the
emergence of special broadcasting formats, which were destined by their producers to
“quality” or “alternative” forms of popular music. The most apt example in the United
States was the emergence, in the late 196Os, of F.M. radio stations which were devoted to
playing music from rock albums, signifying a break from the A.M., top-forty oriented
stations. F.M. stations music editors were given much more freedom of decision regard-
ing the music they aired, which meant that their choices were not necessarily the most
commercially successful songs (Denisoff 1975). In the United Kingdom (and other Eu-
ropean countries), after the initial formation of an all-popular-music station in 1967
(BBC1, modeled after “pirate” stations such as Radio Caroline), the format which mostly
contributed to the production of an artistic hierarchy was the special program, devoted by
its editors to “alternative” or “art” rock. The program of John Peel is the most notable
example in this context (Barnard 1989).
The late 1960s also saw the emergence of periodicals devoted to a “serious” treatment
of rock-as opposed to the “entertainment” oriented press. Crawdaddy, Creem and other
publications appeared, but the one which researchers commonly agree has been the most
important and influential is Rolling Stone (Frith 198 1; Denisoff 1975; Taylor 1985). In the
United Kingdom the long established music weeklies Melody Maker and New Musical
Express shifted their accent in the early 1970s, moving to the forefront of the movement to
enhance the status of rock as “serious” music. During the 1970s, the group of writers that
had been active in the “serious” coverage of rock music began to recapitulate, summarize
and conclude their interpretations of the aesthetics, value and social meanings of the
music in book form. These books took the form of collections of articles and reviews that
had appeared in magazines (Christgau 1973; Eisen 1969; 1970; Marcus 1969; Willis 1981;
Bangs 1988; Landau 1972), biographies of musicians (McGregor 1972; Laing 1971;
Norman 198 I ; 1984; Marsh 1985), rock encyclopedias (Pareles and Romanowski 1983;
Hardy and Laing 1976; Logan and Woffinden 1977; Roxon 1980), rock histories (Belz
1969; Gillett 1970; Miller 1980; Ward, Stokes, and Tucker 1986), record guides and polls
(Marcus 1979; Christgau 1981; Robbins 1985; Marsh and Swenson 1983; Gambaccini
1987) and other genres of writing (Cohn 1969; Mabey 1969; Marcus 1975; 1989; Meltzer
1970; Frame 1983; Laing 1969; 1985).
Producing Artistic Value 91

In the way they categorize entries (in encyclopedias) and divide chapters, in their
choice of musicians and topics worthy of lengthy articles, in their taken-for-granted
periodizations, in the adjectives they use, in their ranking of records in terms of quality-
these books (and others) contain, and therefore constrwct, the accepted truths about rock
music up to 1980. These works were compiled or written several years after the musical
products with which they deal, and they reflect self-criticism and screening of ideas and
attitudes. It is not the immediate response which is published in the running issues of
magazines.
The point is that the construction of “authentic” rock as a distinction by these producers
of meaning has been based on the application of the traditional parameters of autonomous
art to popular music. Components of popular music-lyrics, amplification, recording
technology, assemblage, stylistic eclecticism-have been interpreted in the rock context
as aesthetic means for expressing rebellion and subversiveness, thus discovering in rock
music aesthetic genunineness and “serious” meanings. The consecration of specific al-
bums as the best manifestations of these means and meanings (”masterpieces”) has ren-
dered their creators (groups, individual musicians) autonomous creative entities.
In other words, the construction of a hierarchy of “authenticity” by this apparatus
should be understood, in terms of field theory, as a type of meaning production which was
aimed at raising the artistic prestige and cultural status of popular music. Gaining a certain
amount of general recognition for the value of rock “masterpieces” equals the construction
of an artistic hierarchy in the field of popular music. It reflects an acceptance of the
dominant rules of the cultural field by rock producers of meaning and a success in terms of
the logic of this field.

ROCK AND THE PARAMETERS OF ART

General Meaning: the Ideology of Subversiveness

Unlike other types of popular music, so it has been argued, rock music is “grassroot”
popular music, it grows from “below”, from the daily reality of its musicians and audi-
ences, it is the music of the urban era-the “sound of the city” (Gillett 1970). More
specifically, rock music has been presented and conceived as the music which reflects and
expresses the feelings and the spirit of a specific generational group. It is the music of the
generation which was born and grew up after World War 11, mostly in the West; a
generation that has been raised in affluence, but also under a continuous nuclear threat and
in an alienated urban ecology. At its core, rock music expresses this group’s negation of
and resistance to its conditions of existence, against anything which is “square”: routine,
expected, normative and conformist. In its sounds rock music expresses rage, alienation,
anomie, anxiety, anger, fear. Yet, in response to the boredom that comes with affluence
and to the uncertainty of the social and political situation, rock music is as well an
expression of immediate hedonism: love, sex, dance, consumerism and driving offer a
relief from boredom and anxiety. This is the “pop” side of rock music, which presents fun
and pleasure as a rejection of the ethic of work and restraint, and as redemption from it.

Autonomous Creative Entity

The claim that rock music is a meaningful, “serious” type of popular music has been
supported, in accordance with the traditional concept of art, by the attribution of its
meanings to a creative source, an artistic entity. AS opposed to the composers, lyricists,
92 THE SOCIOLOGICAL QUARTERLY Vol. 35/No. 1/1994

arrangers and singers of earlier periods, who were considered from the perspective of art
as craftpersons in the service of the industry, the music-making which emerged in the
context of rock has been interpreted as artistic and creative. Two frames of music making
have been consolidated as the creative entities in rock music: the group and the individual
musician.
The rock group, as a self-contained creative unit, became the prototypicial creative
entity in rock music during the 1960s. The ideal type of the group contains four to six
musicians who compose the music, write lyrics, play and sing. Later on, when the role of
the musical producer had gained an aura of creativity as well, many groups became
producers of their own records. The concept of the group translates the collectivity in
production into a creative collectivity: the rational division of labour is transformed in the
context of the rock group into a shared creative responsibility which incorporates the
playing of instruments as a component (juridically expressed in the assignment of copy-
right to the group name). Many rock groups achieved recognition and high artistic evalua-
tion when they became a self-contained unit of creativity. Aftermath (1966), for example,
was the first album by the Rolling Stones which contained no “covers”-only self-written
songs:

No longer were the Stones simply recycling the blues and R&B of the masters; now
they had evolved a rock & roll form of their own.. . now the style was distinctly their
own (Marsh, 1983, p. 431).

In addition to the centrality of the group, the individual musician is also a prominent
creative entity in the perception of rock music as art. Given the complexity of the
production process in popular music, the most valued musicians are not just “composers,”
or “performers” but rather individuals who master all the components of production, or at
least a substantial part of them: They compose, write lyrics, sing, play instruments and
often take credit for musical production as well. The individual musician in rock music is
an individual who masters and uses the components of popular music in a creative,
autonomous mode (Landau 1972). Hence, for example, the high appreciation for Stevie
Wonder’s early 1970’s albums, which signalled his full creative autonomy (Ward et al.
1986, pp.498-249; Logan and Wofinden 1977, pp. 246-247).
Rock music’s producers of meaning have designated the group and the individual
musician as creative entities, who in spite of the commercial context are committed to
music which expresses its inner truth. In the United Kingdom, where art-schools have
been a nurturing ground for many rock musicians, their self-image as “artists” has been
prevalent since the early 1960s (Frith and Home 1987). Designating a creative entity also
gave the production of meaning a nucleus of producers and works around which it could
construct a “history” of rock music.

Crowning and Consecrating: History, “Masterpieces”

At the core of rock history, since the beginning of its formulation in the late 1960s, is a
narrative that relates a sequence of eruptions of “authentic” music-making at different
points in time. Several “great artists” (individuals or groups) who produce a number of
“masterpieces” (songs and albums) emerge at each of these moments, amalgamating into
a growing canon of “authentic/classic rock music”. The long-playing phonograph record
Producing Artistic Value 93

(”album”) became in this process the main cultural unit in rock music. It became “the
work”, the unit which radiates artistic aura.
In other words, the formulation of a history of rock involves the acts of consecration
and crowning, with the relevant criteria being the evaluation of creators and their works as
musically innovative in relation to the preceding historical moment, and mostly as being a
successful and refreshing expression of the subversive message. As in other fields of art,
the periodization of rock music and its “masterpieces” is not definitive, and often subject
to struggles and re-evaluations. What follows represents a consensus that does seem to
exist among the mentioned writers regarding the history of rock up to 1980. The albums
mentioned below occupy the highest positions in critics polls (New Musical Express, 30
November 1985; Rolling Stone, 27 August 1987; Gambaccini 1987) and are given top
grading in record guides (Marsh and Swenson 1983; Christgau 1981).
Three moments of condensed “authentic” music-making are generally accepted as the
basic periodization of rock history until 1980: the initial moment of rock’n’roll, which
lasted more or less from 1955 to 1958; the moment of “the sixties,” which lasted more or
less from 1964 to 1972; and the moment of “punk” or “new wave”, which lasted from
1976 to 1979. This does not necessarily mean that in the periods between these moments
there was no “authentic” production of music, but the three different moods associated
with each of these “waves” are regarded as the cradle of the best works in rock music.
ROCKN’ROLL. The major product of the music industry in the 1950s was the “single”
record, containing one song on each side. As a consequence, the long-playing records of
this period which rank high in artistic evaluations are compilations of songs by the
musicians that have been crowned as the leading “pioneers” of rock music. The principal
musicians who have been crowned as the first rock artists are Chuck Berry, Little Richard,
Jerry Lee Lewis and Buddy Holly. A major addition to this list is Elvis Presley- mostly
as a performing personality-particularly with respect to his first years of activity (the
collection of his first recordings, The Sun Collection, issued on one album in 1976, is
regarded as his artistic peak).
“THE SIXTIES’. The musical products of this period comprise the major part of the
classic corpus of rock music. It was during this period that the belief in the artistry of rock
emerged, and in which the rock group as a creative unit was crystallized. A noteworthy
phenomenon during “the sixties” was what came to be known in the United States as “the
British invasion,” namely, the artistic and commercial success of many British groups
in the United States. The individual musicians and especially the groups in this period
are numerous, yet there are several names whose “greatness” is hardly in dispute: The
Beatles, The Rolling Stones, The Beach Boys, The Who, The Velvet Underground, The
Band (groups), Bob Dylan, Jimi Hendrix, Van Morrison (individuals).
Each of these created during this pivotal period several albums which are considered to
be the core “masterpieces” of rock music. A considerable number of these musicians
continued to make highly regarded records in subsequent decades. Of the several “great”
records each of these names has produced, the following are premier exponents whose
consecration constitutes the claim of the producers of meaning for the recognition of rock
music as art: Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band (1967, The Beatles), Exile on Main
Street (1972, The Rolling Stones), Highway 61 Revisited (1965, Bob Dylan), Are You
Experienced? (1967, Jimi Hendrix), Pet Sounds (1966, The Beach Boys), The Velvet
Underground and Nico (1967, The Velvet Underground), Who’sNext (1971, The Who),
The Band (1969, The Band), Astral Weeks (1968, Van Morrison).
94 THE SOCIOLOGICAL QUARTERLY Vol. 35/No. 111994

PUNK. The principal meaning attributed to this wave of music in rock is that punk
constitutes a reaction to the institutionalization of rock during the 1970s. Punk rockers
have responded to what they perceived as the growing detachment of successful rock
musicians from the public they grew out of and supposedly represented and to the dimin-
ishing subversive component in their music. Writing about The Clash, rock critic Lester
Bangs notes that:

. . . it only shows how far they’re going towards the realization of all the hopes we
ever had about rock’n’roll as utopian dream-because if rock’n’roll is truly the demo-
cratic artform, then ...elitism must perish, the “stars” have got to be humanized,
demythologized ...Otherwise it’s all a shuck, a ripoff, and the music is as dead as the
Stones’ and Led Zepplin’s has become (Bangs 1988, p. 233).

Punk musicians assumed the task of bringing back to rock the type of harsh rebellion,
rough sound, musical simplicity and-mostly in Britain-direct reference in the lyrics to
social issues (unemployment, inter-racial relations) which they thought were lost. Punk
signaled a maturing of a historical self-consciousness among rock musicians and critics
regarding their art. It was the first time that a “new generation” of musicians had emerged
whose claim for recognition lay within the context of rock and was based on a heretical
break with the previous generation (unlike the “sixties” musicians whose attitude to the
rock’n’roll “pioneers” was a more orthodox one).
The production of meaning apparatus saw in punk an artistic ideology of primitivism
and minimalism, which paralleled, in its view, artistic movement such as Dada in the
1920s (Laing 1985; Marcus 1989). Notable contributions of punk rock “masterpieces” that
are cited in critic-polls and in record guides are Never Mind the Bollocks, Here’s the Sex
Pistols ( 1 977, The Sex Pistols), The Clash (1977, The Clash), Horses (1975, Patti Smith)
and This Year Model ( I 978, Elvis Costello).
Eminent figures in the history of rock music, whose records have been consecrated as
“masterpieces” although they are not directly associated with each of the three “moments of
authenticity” are the group Pink Floyd with their album Dark Side ofthe Moon (1973; as an
exponent of the so-called “progressive” or “art” rock genre), the group Led Zeppelin with
their fourth untitled album (197 I ) and Bruce Springsteen and his album Born to Run (1975).
it should be stressed here that the above scheme presents rock as mostly “white” music. A
parallel history, with a slightly different periodization, exists for “black” music which is usu-
ally subsumed under the umbrella of rock. The most distinguished contribrutions of “black”
music to the classic corpus of rock include Otis Blue (1965, Otis Redding), Live at the
Apollo (1963, James Brown), Anthology (1977, the song compilation by The Temptations),
What’s Going On (1970, Marvin Gaye) and Songs in the Key ofLife (1976, Stevie Wonder).
Also significant is the fact that women are rarely accorded the status of “great” rock
artist-rock music has been a reflection of male hegemony (Shepherd 1991). In addition
to Patti Smith, some of the few female musicians in rock whose work is granted “classic”
status include Joni Mitchell (Court and Spark 1974), Carole King (Tapestry, 1971) and
Chrissie Hynde of the Pretenders (The Pretenders, 1979).
The names listed above far from exhaust the variety of genres that exist within rock
music and they might also provoke disagreement because of inclusions or omissions of
certain names. The important point here is that these names represent a general consensus
within rock music’s production of meaning apparatus, and that they embody the formula-
Producing Artistic Value 95

tion of a history of rock in terms of artistic evaluation and not necessarily in terms of
commercial success. In other words, the belief in the cultural value of these names
represents the claim of the believers in the meaning of rock music to recognize that music
as an art form.

Aesthetic Genuineness

The consecration of the above mentioned albums as “masterpieces” and the evaluation
of albums in general involves pointing to components of the recording as being the
carriers or signifiers of the meaning of the music and of the musicians’ commitment to it.
These components are thus constructed as the genuine aesthetic elements with which rock
artists create their art. Electric sound, studio work, voice and lyrics, and stylistic eclecti-
cism are four typical and salient components. Consecration of albums recurrently refers to
their successful and “authentic” use as the tools with which “quality” is produced. This list
does not exhaust the aesthetic components of rock, nor does it point to when and how
exactly their use produces “excellence”. It does demonstrates that by referring to them for
assessing “authenticity”, the evaluative discourse of rock has implicitly constructed an
“aesthetic genuineness” condition for artistry.
ELECTRIC SOUND. The volume, the noise level, the “dirty” and distorted sound that
often emits from the sound systems of rock bands or domestic equipment are interpreted
by rock music’s producers of meaning as the quintessential expression of the anger, rage
and negation that this music embodies. Great musicians and masterpieces are often
measured according to their ability to create with their instruments and the attached
devices unique and sublime emotional thrill. Sound, and not harmony or melody is in fact
“the central aesthetic category of rock music” (Wicke 1987, p. 13). This is especially the
case with regard to the electric guitar, the instrument closely identified with rock music.
The typical rock group has at least one electric guitarist, and often two. Jimi Hendrix, for
example, is considered one of the greatest rock artists ever because of his talent and
accomplishments as a creator of electric guitar sounds:

Hendrix is .. . inviting you to take a great leap forward, to follow him into a fourth
dimension where Fender Stratocaster is a paintbrush, where feedback can sing and
amplifiers shriek with pain (Rolling Stone 507, August 27, 1987, unsigned).

Organists and synthesizers players are hailed for their competence as well. In the 1980s
sampler-players and even record-player operators (DJ’s) have also gained artistic status,
mostly in the context of rap and other dance music (Goodwin 1988).
STUDIO WORK. Already in the early stages of rock’n’roll, the musicians did not
perceive the studio merely as a technical site for the reproducion and recording of the
“live” performance. They used it as a kind of laboratory for inventing sound and as a
workplace for the careful and refined construction of the sonic package which is the song.
Elvis Presley’s first recordings were in fact such “inventions” of a new sound by producer
Sam Philips (see Marcus 1975). These practices result in recorded products which are
hardly reproducible on stage.
The interpretation of studio work as an artistic endeavor became more focused follow-
ing the Beatles’ recordings, and especially after the release of the Sgt. Pepper album:
96 THE SOCIOLOGICAL QUARTERLY Vol. 35/No. 1 /1994

The Beatles’ work came to be conceived with the studio in mind-all the production
values a mixing board had to offer were used to serve the ideas conveyed in their music
...As time went on, the Beatles weren’t so much songwriters as they were record-
writers. the studio became the lab where musical ideas were exchanged, re-worked and
re-structured for tape (Riley 1987, p. 266).

The Beach Boys too, primarily with their album Pet Sounds and their song “Good
Vibrations” (1966) have gained high regard because of the studio work invested in them
(Gillett 1983, p. 329).
As the site where sound is manipulated, constructed and moulded, the studio evolved
into a complex and key instrument in the writing and creation of rock music, rendering it
an “art of recording” (Clarke 1983).
LYRICS AND THE GRAIN OF THE VOICE. This term, generally associated with
Barthes’ article (1977), refers to the idiosyncratic qualities of a singer’s voice, which give
his or her singing its unique feeling. In the context of rock music, the grain of the voice
has become a prominent aesthetic component in the evaluation of music. The interpreta-
tion of singing as credible and authentic, as reflecting the performer’s genuine emotions,
points to the singer’s voice as evidence. Singing patterns which use a unique grain of
voice, often one which traditionally would not be accepted as “singing” at all, might be
accepted in rock music as a pivotal contribution to the quality of the music. In the same
way sighs, whispers, screams and shouts, grunting and other vocal practices might be
interpreted in the context of rock as signs of the performer’s emotional commitment to the
meaning of the music. Van Morrison, for example, is generally considered one of the most
important rock musicians ever, due in large part to the emotional commitment perceived
by critics in his singing:
Van Morrison has the yarrrrragh. His career, especially since Astral Weeks, can be seen
as an attempt to deal with the yarragh: to find music appropiate to it; to bury it; to dig it
out; to draw from that sound, that aesthetic, new tales to tell, or old tales to tell in new
ways. (Marcus 1980, p. 322).
The grain of the voice becomes a much more significant factor when it is coupled with
words which might be interpreted as “serious”. That is, when the words can be isolated
from their performance and analyzed as written text, then rock lyrics might be presented
as “poetry” (Christgau 1969). Bob Dylan is the preeminent example here. His lyrics are a
major component in the attribution of his “greatness” and his contribution to the moulding
of rock as an art form. His songs are generally considered as social and political critiques,
and as complex and sophisticated personal poetry. Analyses of Dylan have depicted him
not only as a personal talent, but as a master of dispositions which place him in the
traditions of American poetry and high culture (Monaghan 1973).
However, even with Dylan, it is generally agreed among critics and others that the vocal
presentation should not be separated from the words (Thomson and Gutman 1990). The
prevailing approach among producers of meaning is that isolating rock lyrics from their
performance and subjecting them to any form of content analysis, reduces their com-
poundness of meaning. Rock lyrics should be examined, according to this view, in
conjunction with their performance and the sonic package of which they are a component
(Frith 1988a). Analyzed in this way, even simple and “banal” lyrics might be interpreted
as “sung poetry”, as in the case of Buddy Holly (Laing 1971).
“banal” lyrics might be interpreted as “sung poetry”, as in the case of Buddy Holly (Laing
1971).
Producing Artistic Value 97

1987). However, from the moment that a typical rock sound was established, based on
electric instruments and typical drum beat patterns, a kind of musical colonialism began to
take place, where different musical genres underwent a process of “rockization”: their
adoption of and adaptation to rock patterns. Based on these adaptations, several sub-
genres of rock music evolved, each contributing its own “great artists” and “masterpieces”
to the general corpus of rock. Thus, for example, the album Shoot out the Lights (1982) by
Richard and Linda Thompson is considered a rock “masterpiece” because of its successful
combination of folk music and rock into “folk rock”. The same holds true for the group
King Crimson (Red, 1974), for its successful combination-in rock terms-of traditional
and contemporary classical music, jazz and rock (”art rock” or “progressive rock”).
Stylistic eclecticism, in other words, is a virtue in rock music. The ability of musicians
to cross genres and musical languages, sometimes within the same piece of music, while
preserving an authentic rock “drive” (as judged by critics) has become an aesthetic value
in rock music.
A recent development in rock electicism is the adoption of non-Western musical lan-
guages by leading rock musicians (Peter Gabriel, Talking Heads, Paul Simon) and adop-
tion of rock patterns by local musicians around the globe (Wallis and Malm 1984; Manuel
1988; Frith 1989; Campbell-Robinson, Buck, and Cuthbert 1991; Regev 1992). The
resulting outcome of these merges is called “world music” or “ethnic rock”; the pioneering
example here is Jamaica’s reggae music, and the crowning of its leading exponent, Bob
Marley, as an influental rock musician in the 1970s.

THE CULTURAL STATUS OF ROCK

In the last three decades, then, the producers of meaning have been applying to rock music
the accepted parameters of artistry, formulating thereby a claim for the recognition of
popular music as an art form, with rock music as its artistic vanguard. The extent to which
this claim has been validated should be examined in two contexts: the field of popular
music and the larger field of cultural production.
In the field of popular music, rock music’s claim for artistic supremacy has been
realized, with the emergence of rock aesthetic as a major creative force and structuring
principle. An everpresent and constantly changing frontier of authenticity and artistry is
being nurtured by the critics. These frontiers are the main source for innovations in style
and sound for the whole field of popular music. Musicians and works are defined as such
frontiers because in the sonic textures they create, in the lyrics they write, in their ability
as instrumentalists and in the general drive of their music, they express-with genuine
commitment and emotional intensity , according to the critics-meanings of negation and
refusal, celebrations of immediate fun and pleasure.
The enhancement of new frontiers during the 1980s (the American “alternative” scene
with groups like R.E.M and Sonic Youth, British groups like the Smiths and the Cure,
rap-music with groups like Public Enemy and Run-D.M.C) has thrust occupants of earlier
frontiers up to a definitive “classic” position. The logic and practice of the rock aesthetic
has thus constructed an artistic hierarchy of “old’ and “new”, “high” and “low” in the field
on popular music. And as the recent phenomenon of “ethnic rock” demonstrates, the
emergent field is an international one.
Recognition of a cultural form as an art form in the field of cultural production means
the penetration of the habitus of that form into the dominant cultural capital (Bourdieu
1984; Lamont and Lareau 1988). The traditional contents of the dominant cultural capital
98 THE SOCIOLOGICAL QUARTERLY Vol. 35/No. 1/1994

are embodied in the institutions of art and academia. It follows that penetration of the
cultural capital means the presence of the particular cultural form in museums, perfor-
mances in concert halls, public funding and references in “quality” magazines and jour-
nals. It also implies the emergence of organizational frameworks and “scientific” dis-
course in academia, which usually includes assessment of the value of that form.
In this regard, the recognition of rock music as an art form in the larger cultural field has
been partial. Discourse about rock does exist in the art and culture columns of “quality”
press and sophisticated magazines (see above citation from Ar&mm). Rock music is also
represented in the soundtracks of “art” films (see Wim Wenders’ Wings of Desire, for
example). However, except for a handful of occasions, performances of rock music in
classical-music concert halls are a rare phenomenon, and public funding of rock musicians
is almost unthinkable (these are estimations which should be examined empirically). The
academic discussion of popular and rock music is not autonomous. Although such a
discussion, theoretical and empirical, did emerge, it is carried out in “hosting” disciplines
and university departments.
The cultural status of the music of the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, Bob Dylan and Jimi
Hendrix in the last decade of the twentieth century might not equal that of Beethoven’s or
Mozart’s, but it is relatively high.

CONCLUSION
In this analysis, rock and popular music join a list which also includes film and photogra-
phy in the recent past, and literature in the more distant past. When they originally
appeared, these cultural forms were traditionally regarded-by the dominant position in
the cultural field-as inferior and “non artistic”. The struggle of their producers and
interpreters has enabled their recognition as art and the consequent emergence of their
specific fields, structured by an artistic heirarchy.
At the root of these struggles, and at the bottom of the institutionalized hierarchies,
stands the ideology of autonomous art. The belief in this ideology has been the central
motive behind the cultural producers’ claim that certain forms are “art”. Recent develop-
ments in other fields-advertising and furniture-design are revelatory examples-suggest
that the belief in the ideology of autonomous art has been adopted by their producers as
well. The implication here is that it might be hypothesized that artistic hierarchies, which
rank producers according to their aesthetic or expressive value, as judged by “experts” in
the field, are becoming a central structuring force in a growing number of fields of
production. In light of this examination of popular music, it seems that the cultural field is
currently characterized not so much by an abandonment of the belief in hierarchies based
on this ideology, but rather by a struggle over the content of the hierarchies. It is a struggle
to redefine aesthetic criteria.
In other words, the ideology of autonomous art, which ranks cultural products accord-
ing to their “expressive truth” is still a structuring force in the cultural field. Its spread to
fields where it has not been such a force, and its adoption by producers in such fields,
might suggest that the belief in this ideology has become even more widespread. Produc-
tion of meaning apparatuses emerge and conduct struggles for the constitution of new
aesthetic criteria, some of them eclectic, and for the recognition of cultural forms as “art”.
The postmodern attack on traditional aesthetic criteria and on existing hierarchies might
be understood as a strategy in these struggles. At the bottom, a belief in hierarchies, in
“high” and “low”, in “valuable” and “valueless” still exists.
Producing Artistic Value 99

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
A Post-Doctoral fellowship from the Ginsberg foundation at the Hebrew University is
gratefully acknowledged. The author thanks Tamar El-Or, Eric Cohen, Paul DiMaggio,
Simon Frith, Zali Gurevitch, Ronen Shamir, Sasha Weitman and three anonymous re-
viewers for their comments and criticism.

APPENDIX

DISCOGRAPHY--LIST O F RECORD ALBUMS MENTIONED IN THE ARTICLE

BY NAME OF PERFORMER
The Band. 1969. The Band. Capitol.
The Beach Boys. 1967. Pet Sounds. Capitol.
The Beatles. 1967. Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band. Capitol.
James Brown. 1963. Live at the Apollo. King.
The Clash. 1977. The Clash. CBS(U.K.).
Elvis Costello. 1978. This Year’s Model. Columbia.
Bob Dylan. 1965. Highway 61 Revisted. Columbia.
Marvin Gaye. 1970. What’s Going On.Tamla.
Jimi Hendrix. 1967. Are you Experiences? Reprise.
Carole King. 1971. Tapestry.Ode.
King Crimson. 1974. Red. Atlantic.
Led Zeppelin. 1971, (Untitled). Atlantic.
Joni Mitchell. 1974. Court and Spark. Asylum.
Van Morrison. 1968. Astral Weeks. Warner Brottiers.
Pink Floyd. 1973. Dark Side of the Moon. Harvest.
Elvis Presley. 1976. The Sun Collection. RCA.
The Pretenders. 1979. The Pretenders. Sire.
Otis Redding. 1965. Otis Blue. Volt.
The Rolling Stones. 1966. Aftermath. London.
The Rolling Stones. 1972. Exile on Main Street. Rolling Stones.
The Sex Pistols. 1977. Never Mind the Bollocks Here’s the Sex Pistols. Warner Brothers.
Patti Smith. 1975. Horses. Arista.
Bruce Springsteen. 1975. Bron to Run. Columbia.
The Temptations. 1977. Anthology. Motown.
Richard and Linda Thompson. 1982. Shoot Out the Lights. Hannibal.
The Velvet Underground. 1967. The Velvet Underground and Nico. Verve.
The Who. 1971 Who’s Next. Decca.
Stevie Wonder. 1976. Songs in the Key @Life. Tamla.

REFERENCES
Adorno, Theodor W. 1941. “On Popular Music.” Studies in Philosophy and Social Science: 9: 17-
48.
Bangs, Lester, 1988. Psychotic Reactions. New York: Vintage Books.
Barnard, Stephen. 1989. On the Radio: Music Radio in Britain. Milton Keynes: Open University
Press.
Barthes, Roland 1977. “The Grain of the Voice.” Pp. 179-189 in Image, Music, Text. London:
Flamingo.
Becker, Howard S. 1951. “The Professional Dance Musician and His Audience.” American Journal
of Sociology 57:136-144.
. 1982. Art Worlds. Berkeley: University o f California Press.
Belz, Carl. 1969. The Stoty of Rock. New York: Harper and Row.
100 THE SOCIOLOGICAL QUARTERLY Vol. 35/No. 111994

Bourdieu, Pierre. 1969. “Intellectual Field and Creative Project .” Social Science Information 8:89-
119.
. 1980. “The Production of Belief: Contribution to an Economy of Symbolic Goods.”
Media, Culture and Society 2:261-293.
. 1983. “The Field of Cultural Production, or: The Economic World Reversed.” Poetics
12:311-356.
, 1984. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press.
. 1990. Photography: A Middle-Brow Art. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Brake, Mike. 1980. The Sociology ojYouth Cultures and Youth Subcultures. London: Routledge and
Kegan Paul.
Campbell-Robinson, Deanna, Elizabeth B. Buck and Marlene Cuthbert. 1991. Music at the Mar-
gins. Newbury Park: Sage.
Chambers, lain. 1985. Urban Rhythms: Pop Music and Popular Culture. London: Macmillan.
Chapple, Steve and Reebee Garofalo. 1977. Rock’n’roll is Here to Pay: The History and Politics of
the Music Industry. Chicago: Nelson Hall.
Christgau, Robert. 1969. “Rock Lyrics are Poetry (Maybe).” Pp. 23&243 in The Age of Rock,
edited by Jonathan Eisen. New York: Vintage Books.
. 1973. Any Old Way You Choose It. Baltimore: Penguin.
. 1981. Christgau’s Guide. New Haven: Tickner and Fields.
Christopherson, R.W. 1974. “From Folk Art to Fine Art: Transformation in the Meaning of Photo-
graphic Work.” Urban Life and Culture 3: 123-157.
Clarke, Paul. 1983. “‘A Magic Science’: Rock Music as a Recording Art.” Popular Music 3:195-
214.
Cohn, Nic. 1969. AwopBopalooBopalopBumBoom: Pop from the Beginning. London: Paladin.
Denisoff, Serge R. 1975. Solid Gold: The Popular Record Industry. New Brunswick: Transaction.
DiMaggio, Paul. 1987. “Classification in Art.” American Sociological Review 52:44M55.
Eisen, Jonathan. (ed.) 1969. The Age of Rock. New York: Random House.
. (ed.) 1970. The Age of Rock 11. New York: Vintage Books.
Frame, Pete. 1983. Rock Family Trees. London: Omnibus Press.
Frith, Simon. 1981. Sound Efects: Youth, Leisure und the Politics of Rock and Rolf. New York:
Pantheon.
, 1986. “Art versus Technology: The Strange Case of Popular Music.” Media, Culture and

Society 8:263-280.
. 1987. “Towards an Aesthetic of Popular Music.” Pp. 133-150 in Music andSociety, edited
by Richard Leppert and Susan McClary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
. 1988a. “Why Do Songs Have Words?’ Pp. 105-128 in Music for Pleasure. New York:
Routledge.
. 1988b. Music jor Pleasure, New York, Routledge.
. 1990. “What is Good Music?’ Canadian University Music Review 10:92-102.
. (ed.) 1989. World Music, Politics and Social Change. Manchester: Manchester University
Press.
Frith, Simon and Howard Horne. 1987. Art into Pop. London: Routledge.
Gambaccini, Paul. 1987. The Top 100 Albums. London: GRR/PaviIlon.
Cans, Herbert. 1973. Popular Culture and High Culture. New York: Free Press.
Gillett, Charlie. 1970/1983. The Sound of the City: the Rise of Rock and Roll. Revised and
expanded edition. London: Souvenir Press.
Goodwin, Andrew. 1988. “Sample and Hold: Pop Music in the Digital Age of Reproduction.”
Critical Quarterly 30:34-49.
Grossberg, Lawrence. 1984a. “Another Boring Day in Paradise: Rock and Roll and the Ernpower-
ment of Everyday Life.” Popular Music 4:225-258.
Producing Artistic Value 101

. 1984b. “The Social Meaning of Rock and Roll.” OneTwoThreeFour 1:13-21.

. 1985. “If Rock and Roll Communicates, Then Why Is It so Noisy?’ Pp. 451-463 in
Popular Music Perspectives, edited by David Horn. Goteborg: International Association for
the Study of Popular Music.
. 1986. “Is There Rock after Punk” Critical Studies in Mass Communication” 3:5&74.
. 1987. “Rock and Roll in Search of an Audience.” Pp. 175-197 in Popular Music and
Communication. edited by James Lull. Newbury Park: Sage.
Hamm, Charles. 1979. Yesterdays: Popular Song in America. New York: W.W. Norton.
Hardy, Phil and Dave Laing. (eds.) 1976. The Encyclopedia of Rock. St. Albans: Panther.
Hatch, David and Stephen Millward. 1987. From Blues to Rock. Manchester: Manchester Univer-
sity Press.
Hebdige, Dick. 1979. Subculture: The Meaning of Style. London: Methuen.
Jameson, Frederic. 1984. “Postmodernism, or The Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism.” New Left
Review 146:53-92.
Johnston, John, and Elihu Katz. 1957. “Youth and Popular Music: A Study of Taste.” American
Journal of Sociology 62:563-568.
Kealy, Edward R. 1979. “From Craft to Art: The Case of Sound Mixers and Popular Music.”
Sociology of Work and Occupation 6:3-29.
Laing, Dave. 1969. The Sound of Our Time. Chicago: Quadrangle Books.
. 1971. Buddy Holly. London: Studio Vista.
. 1985. One Chord Wonders: Power and Meaning in Punk Rock. Milton Keynes: Open
University Press.
Lamont, Michelle & Annette P. Lareau. 1988. “Cultural Capital: Allusions, Gaps and Glissandos in
Recent Theoretical Developments.” Sociological Theory 6: 153-1 68.
Landau, Jon. 1972. It’s Too Late to Stop Now. San Francisco: Straight Arrow Books.
Logan, Nick and Bob Woffinden. 1977. The Illustrated Encyclopedia ofRock. New York: Harmony
Books.
Lovell, Terry. 1972. “Sociology of Aesthetic Structures and Contextualism.” Pp. 329-349 in Soci-
ology of Mass Communication, edited by Denis McQuail. Baltimore: Penguin.
Lyotard, Jean F. 1984. The Postmodern Condition. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Mabey, Richard. 1969. The Pop Process. London: Hutchinson Educational.
Manuel, Peter. 1988. Popular Musics of the Non- Western World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Marcus, Greil, (ed.) 1969. Rock and Roll will Stand. Boston: Beacon Press.
. (ed.) 1979. Stranded. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
. 1975. Mystery Train. New York: E.P. Dutton and Co.
. 1980. “Van Morrison.” Pp. 320-323 in The Rolling Stone fllustrated History of
Rock’n’roll, edited by Jim Miller. New York: Random House/Rolling Stone Press.
. 1985. “Corrupting the Absolute.” Arforum 23:86.
. 1989. Lipstic Truces. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Marsh, Dave. 1983. “The Rolling Stones.” Pp. 431433 in The New Rolling Stone Record Guide,
edited by Dave Marsh and John Swenson. New York: Random House/Rolling Stone Press.
. 1985. Fortunate Son. New York: Random House.
Marsh, Dave and Swenson, John (eds.) 1983. The New Rolling Stone Record Guide, New York:
Random House/Rolling Stone Press.
McGregor, Craig (ed.) 1972. Bob Dylan: A Retrospective. New York: William Morrow.
Meltzer, Richard. 1970. The Aesthetics of Rock. New York: Something Else Press.
Middleton, Richard. 1990. Studying Popular Music. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Miller, Jim (ed.) 1980. The Rolling Stone Illustrated History of Rock and Roll. New York: Random
House/Rolling Stone Press.
Monaghan, David. 1973. “Taking Bob Dylan Seriously: The Waste Land Tradition.” English
Quarterly 6: 165- 170.
102 THE SOCIOLOGICAL QUARTERLY Vol. 35/No. 1/1994

Mukerji, Chandra. 1978. “Artwork: Collection and Contemporary Culture.” American Journal of
Sociology 84:348-365.
Norman, Philip. 1981. Shout!: The Beatles in Their Generation. New York: Simon and Schuster.
. 1984. Sympathy for the Devil: The Rolling Stones Story, New York: Linden PresslSimon
and Schuster.
Pareles, John and Patricia Romanowski (eds.) 1983. The Rolling Stone Encyclopedia of Rock and
Roll. New York: Rolling Stone Press.
Peterson, Richard A. 1990. “Why 1955? Explaining the Advent of Rock Music.” Popular Music
9:97-116.
Regev, Motti. 1992. “Israeli Rock, or a Study in the Politics of ‘Local Authenticity’.” Popular
Music I1:1-14.
Riesman, David. 1950. “Listening to Popular Music.” American Quarterly 2:359-37 1 .
Riley, Tim. 1987. “For the Beatles: Notes on their Achievement.” Popular Music 6:257-271.
Robbins, Ira A. (ed.) 1985. The New Trouser Press Record Guide. New York: Charles Scribner’s
Sons.
Rosenblum, Barbara. 1978. Photographers at Work: A Sociology of Photographic Styles. New
York: Holmes and Meier.
Roxon, Lillian. 1980. Lillian Roxon’s Rock Encyclopedia. London: Angus and Robertson. (revised
edition)
Schudson, Michael. 1987. “The New Validation of Popular Culture: Sense and Sentimentality in
Academia.” Critical Studies in Mass Communication 4:5 1-68,
Shepherd, John. 1991. “Music and Male Hegemony.” Pp. 152-173 in Music as Social Text.
Cambridge: Polity Press.
Sontag, Susan. 1966. Against fnterpretation. New York: Dell.
Stratton, Jon. 1982. “Between Two Worlds: Art and Commercialism in the Record Industry.”
Sociological Review 30:267-285.
. 1983a. “What is ‘Popular Music’?’ Sociological Review 3 1:293-309.
. 1983b. “Capitalism and Romantic Ideology in the Record Business.” Popular Music
3: 143- 156.
Taylor, Paul. 1985. Popular Music since 1955: A Critical Guide to the Literature. London: Mansell.
Thomson, Elizabeth and David Gutman (eds.) 1990. The Dylan Companion. London: Macmillan.
Vulliamy, Graham. 1977. “Music and the Mass Culture Debate.” Pp. 179-200 in Whose Music? A
Sociology of Musical Languages by John Shepherd, Phil Virden, Graham Vulliamy and
Trevor Wishart. New Brunswick: Transaction.
Wallis, Roger and Krister Malm. 1984. Big Sounds from Small Peoples: The Music Industry in
Small Countries. New York: Pendragon.
Ward, Ed, Geoffery Stokes, and Ken Tucker. 1986. The Age of Rock: The Rolling Stone History of
Rock and Roll. New York: Summit Books.
Wicke, Peter. 1987. Rock Music. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Williams, Raymond. 1958. Culture and Society. London: Chatto and Windus.
Willis, Ellen. 1981. Beginning to See the Light: Pieces o f a Decade. New York: Knopf.
Willis, Paul. 1978. Profane Culture. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Wolff, Janet. 1981. The Social Production of Art. London: Macmillan Education.
. 1983. Aesthetics and the Sociology of Art. London: George Allen and Unwin.
. 1987. “The Ideology of Autonomous Art.” Pp. 1-12 in Music and Society, edited by
Richard Leppert and Susan McClary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Zolberg, Vera. 1990. Constructing A Sociology ofthe Arts. New York: Cambridge University Press.